M EASURES

Whenever possible, existing measures were adopted for this study. However, given the exploratory nature of the study, and the fact that a large number of variables have not previously been used in outsourcing context, it was neces-sary to pretest and pilot test the variables. This was done by finalizing a working definition for those constructs, based on relevant literature and comments from practitioner experts and academic experts. Individual meas-urement items were then developed for each construct. Once a preliminary version of the items was complete, it was reviewed and subject to a pilot test as described previously. With the exception of a few demographic items, all variables were measured on a seven-point Likert scale anchored at one end by “strongly disagree” and the other end by “strongly agree.” Six constructs were operationalized for the study. A summary of the constructs can be found in Table 5.1 below, and the items used to operationalize each of the constructs can be found in Appendix D.

Complementary core competencies is the degree to which the transplant’s competence can enhance a client organization’s ability to achieve business goals. Vendor managers’ expectations are to eliminate deficiencies in the parties’ portfolio of resources by using a transplant’s distinct capabilities and knowledge. Hence, transplants are seen as a resource that can enhance cli-ent’s ability to achieve its business goals. From the vendor’s perspective, client core competence includes the experience and product knowledge the transplant has in the vendor’s product category as well as the administrative, supervisory, and strategic ability of the client’s executives. Complementary resource was operationalized with three items from Lambe, Spekman and Hunt (2002) and one item from Van der Heijden (2001). The questionnaire items read: (item CCC1) I contribute different capabilities to [client com-pany], (item CCC2) I have complementary strengths that are useful to [client

84

company], (item CCC3) I have separate abilities that, when combined with [client company]’s capabilities, enable them to achieve goals beyond their individual reach, (item CCC4) I have the capability to envisioning the [client company]’s business processes which technology makes possible. Four items used to measure this variable is presented in Appendix D.

Construct Measure assesses Key references Items*

Complementary

core competencies Degree to which the transplant’s competence can enhance client organization’s ability to achieve business goals

Degree to which client managers’

continued expectations of the transplants to respond as if they were still subordinates

Ho et al. (2003) 6 (7)

Relational norms The party’s expectations of mak-ing adjustments in the ongomak-ing relationship in accordance with changing circumstances.

Heide & John (1992), Rokkan & Haugland (2002)

10 (10)

Role conflict Degree of incongruity or incom-patibility of expectations associ-ated with transplant’s role

Nygaard & Dahlstrom (2002)

5 (6)

Role ambiguity Lack of clarity of transplant’s

behavioral requirements. Nygaard & Dahlstrom

(2002) 7 (7)

Task performance Degree to which transplant can fulfill responsibilities and meet quality standards.

Kuvaas (2006) 6 (6)

* Final item numbers (initial item numbers) Table 5.1. Definitions of constructs.

Client managerial persistent expectations is the degree to which client man-agers continued to expect the transplants to respond as if they were still sub-ordinates. Belief perseverance describes the tendency for prior beliefs and expectations to persevere, even in the face of new data or when the data that generated those beliefs and expectations are no longer valid (Anderson &

Kellam, 1992). Applied to the IT outsourcing context, these socio-psychological findings lend weight to the notion that client-managers do not change their old schemas and expectations regarding former subordinates, even though the managers may recognize that these ex-subordinates are no longer officially under their jurisdiction but are under the supervision of another organization (Ho et al., 2003). In total, six items measured the con-struct. Questionnaire items read: because I was previously a part of client organization before outsourcing, managers in the client organization now

85

expect me to: (item PME1) be more willing to work extra hours, (item PME2) perform my job more reliably, (item PME3) volunteer to do more tasks over and above the service level agreement, (item PME4) invest more in improving current skills to serve the better, (item PME5) be more willing to put in a full day’s work for a full day’s pay, (item PME6) suggest more initiatives on technology issues to them. Six statements used to measure this variable is presented in Appendix D.

Relational norms are defined as a higher order construct consisting of the dimension flexibility (FLE), information exchange (INF), and solidarity (SOL). Flexibility describes the party’s expectations of making adjustments in the ongoing relationship in accordance with changing circumstances. In-formation exchange expresses the expectation that particular pieces of in-formation that might help the other party will be provided. Solidarity refers to expected degrees of efforts of the parties toward preserving the relation.

Each dimension is measured as a multi-item scale with a Likert-type format.

Three items of flexibility were adapted from Heide & John (1992) and one new item was picked from Rokkan and Haugland (2002) due to low alpha on the original scale. The items of flexibility read: (item FLE1) flexibility in response to request for changes is a characteristic of this relationship, (item FLE2) the parties expect to be able to make adjustments in the ongoing rela-tionship to cope with changing circumstances (item FLE3), (item FLE4) the terms of an ongoing transaction are not renegotiable under any circum-stances.

Four items of information exchange were adapted from Heide and John (1992). Questionnaire items read: (item INF1) in this relationship, it is ex-pected that any information that might help the other party will be provided to them, (item INF2) Exchange of information in this relationship takes place frequently and informally, and not only in accordance with a specified agreement, (item INF3) it is expected that parties will provide appropriate information if it can help the other party, (item INF4) it is expected that we keep each other informed about events or changes that may affect the other party. Three items of solidarity were adapted from Heide & John (1992) and one new item was picked from Rokkan and Haugland (2002) due to low alpha on the original scale.

The questionnaire items of solidarity read: (item SOL1) problems that arise in the course of this relationship are treated by the parties as joint rather than individual responsibilities, (item SOL2) the parties are committed to im-provements that may benefit the relationship as a whole, and not only by the individual parties, (item SOL3) the parties in this relationship do not mind owing each other favors, (item SOL4) an important feature of this relation-ship is that neither party would do something damaging to the other party.

86

The underlying structure of the relational norm construct was approached in a molecular way. Each of the three norm types represented a separate dimen-sion, which reflected an existing overall factor structure. It was hypothesized that an overall latent structure existed, indicated by its first order types.

Thus, relational norm was represented only through one combination of norm types. Similarly, different transplants can only have the same percep-tion through the same combinapercep-tion of beliefs. If the molecular perspective is valid, a comparison of the loadings would be an indicator of the relative importance of each indicator in reflecting the overall perception (Chin &

Gopal, 1995). Twelve items were used to measure this variable, see Appen-dix D.

The role stress scales were based on the seven point measures developed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzmann (1970). The conflict and ambiguity measures consisted of six and seven items, respectively. Role conflict refers to the degree of incongruity or incompatibility of expectations associated with a transplant’s role. Questionnaire items role conflict read: (item CON1) I re-ceive assignments without the manpower necessary to complete the task, (item CON2) I have to circumvent rules or policies to complete assignments, (item CON3) I receive incomplete requests from two or more people, (item CON4) I am often given assignments without adequate resources and mate-rials to execute them, (item CON5) I work on unnecessary tasks for [client company], (item CON6) I have to work under vague directives or orders.

Role conflict consisted of six items, as detailed in Appendix D.

Role ambiguity refers to the lack of clarity of a transplant’s behavioral re-quirements. Questionnaire items role ambiguity read: (item AMB1) I feel certain about how much authority I have, (item AMB2) I know what my responsibilities are, (item AMB3) I have just the right amount of work to do, (item AMB4) I know that I have divided up my time properly, (item AMB5) I know exactly what is expected of me, (item AMB6) Expectation of what has to be done is clear, (item AMB7) I perform work that conforms with my values. Role ambiguity consisted of seven items, respectively, as detailed in Appendix D.

Task performance, the major dependent variable, refers to the degree to which a transplant can fulfill responsibilities and meet quality standards.

Work performance was operationalized into six components by Kuvaas (2006) Three items to fulfill responsibilities were based on (Brockner, Tyler,

& Cooper-Schneider, 1992), and three items to meet quality standards were based on (May, Korczynski, & Frenkel, 2002). Questionnaire items read:

(item TAP1) I try to work as hard as possible, (item TAP2) the quality of my work is top-notch, (item TAP3) I intentionally expend a great deal of effort in carrying out my job, (item TAP4) I often put in extra effort in carrying out my job, (item TAP5) I almost always perform better than an acceptable

87

level, (item TAP6) I often perform better than expected from me. The six items are presented in Appendix D.